The Smallest Minority

Without a metaframework that transcends the physical world, there can be no objective meaning to the universe, only a subjective meaning.

If we are simply transient amalgamations of animated carbon, struggling to reproduce ourselves before we head off into the oblivion of death, then there is no basis for morality, nor is there any convincing reason to struggle for the sake of anything greater than yourself.

That you believe otherwise only indicates that you have chosen to invest concepts such as Country and Family with meaning. To you, then, these things are meaningful — but only because you have decided that they should be. Others, who may not be so upright in their thinking, reasonably conclude that nothing else matters beyond extracting every possible bit of hedonistic enjoyment from the world before they die. And they are right to decide that way, if you assume that there is indeed no higher metaframework that gives our behavior objective meaning.

It is this cold logic that religion seeks to defuse, by arguing that there is indeed objective meaning to the world.

Now, you can argue that many or most religions are dishonest, illogical, cruel, or feckless. But to argue that Religion as a general principle is a bad thing is to embrace nihilism, however unwillingly.

Mastiff:

Where have I argued that "Religion as a general principle is a bad thing?"

And if there is no "objective meaning" to the universe. As far as "any convincing reason to struggle for the sake of anything greater than yourself," I have no problem coming up with one, so that tends to demolish the rest of your argument, does it not?

they believe in something I am unable to believe in.

unable or unwilling? It's difficult to tell if one is unable to do something that only takes a change of attitude, however emotionally difficult this might be. Unwilling is certainly true.

Kevin,

Fellow Southeastern AZ dweller here.

I tend to agree with you even though I myself am an agnostic not an atheist.

I have no trouble with the concept of a god only with those religions who profess to "Know His Will". First off, what if She is pissed about that phrase?

Likewise, I have no problem with them choosing to belive whatever they wish (with one exception) as long as they do not try to force me to believe the same way.

My one exception I believe is a cult not a religion ISLAM!

My $0.02

Ben:

If you can't tell the difference, does it really matter? ;)

Kevin: Discovering that other people do not share their unsupported-by-evidence beliefs sure makes some people insecure, doesn't it.

If you can't tell the difference, does it really matter?

I guess not. However, if you have free will, then you certainly would be able to believe in anything. It's a choice, and you are either willing or unwilling.

If you are unable, then you must not have free will.

He shoots! He scores!

"I guess not. However, if you have free will, then you certainly would be able to believe in anything. It's a choice, and you are either willing or unwilling."

So... homosexuality is just a choice?

Oh, wait...

Kevin: Discovering that other people do not share their unsupported-by-evidence beliefs sure makes some people insecure, doesn't it.

What you perceive as insecurity may in fact be frustration with constant, and often unfounded, attacks from all sides. There are valid criticisms of Christianity to be sure, but most often the criticism is based on ignorance of what the actual canons and beliefs are and a violent prejudice against religion in general. It becomes tiresome. The Christian faith is not devoid of odious followers, but it has accomplished some wonderful things in the world in spite of that. More than any other group. But if you want unsupported by evidence, how about humanism? From the French Revolution to the Cuban Revolution we have hundreds of years of evidence that man as the measure of all things produces nothing short of disastrous results. And yet Kevin clings to his faith that one day someone will figure out how to make a Christian society without the Christianity.

What sort of evidence are you looking for that Christian beliefs are valid? Do you mean that we have no evidence that there is a God? Read through the comments on Kevin's Thursday post. There is very compelling evidence. Schroeder's The Science of God and Strobel's The Case for a Creator go into the evidence in-depth.

So... homosexuality is just a choice?

How should I know? You're comparing apples and oranges now though.

Is a belief in, say, the goodness or badness of the constitution the same thing as having a preferred sexual orientation? One is a belief in something abstract. The other is (maybe, I don't know) a bias in a biological imperative.

Try a different example.

Sarah:

There are valid criticisms of Christianity to be sure, but most often the criticism is based on ignorance of what the actual canons and beliefs are and a violent prejudice against religion in general. It becomes tiresome. ...
What sort of evidence are you looking for that Christian beliefs are valid?

I don't have a problem with what Christianity holds to be good and proper behavior. Indeed, I share and follow much of it. What I do have a problem with is the notion that such behavior is right because someone listened to the voices in his head and shouted "I hear God!", after which what he said God told him is assumed by others to be correct because it was God who told him.

The point is that one can hold that the good and proper behavior prescribed by Christianity is indeed good and proper behavior without believing that it is so because "God says so."

I am quite curious, though. Whether you agree with this point of view or not, do you understand it?

Your point is well taken, though. I know several people who are not mass murderers, so they tell me, only because they fear the torments of hell for eternity. Contrast that with the behavior of Islamic terrorists in the Middle East, who expect the pleasures of paradise if only they are killed while committing mass murder.

And in both cases, it's all in the name of God. Pardon the pun, but the irrationality of humankind is scary as hell to me.

I don't have a problem with what Christianity holds to be good and proper behavior. Indeed, I share and follow much of it. What I do have a problem with is the notion that such behavior is right because someone listened to the voices in his head and shouted "I hear God!", after which what he said God told him is assumed by others to be correct because it was God who told him.

And therein lies the problem. If God was talking to you in your head, or in a great booming voice, or any way he might do it, how would you know it was him, and not, say, super intelligent and powerful space aliens, or the brain in the vat, or anything besides God? You see, God cannot prove himself to you, it is impossible, as far as I can tell. Hence you are always stuck with a leap of faith.

Ben:

And therein lies the problem. If God was talking to you in your head, or in a great booming voice, or any way he might do it, how would you know it was him, and not, say, super intelligent and powerful space aliens, or the brain in the vat, or anything besides God? You see, God cannot prove himself to you, it is impossible, as far as I can tell. Hence you are always stuck with a leap of faith.

Yup. Been saying that for some time. I don't hear the voices and I can't make that leap.

What's the difference between a prophet and a schizophrenic? One is followed by millions and the other is followed by orderlies.

Can you imagine how different the world would be if a few carefully chosen drugs had been administered to a handfull of carefully chosen people during the last few millenia?

However, if you have free will, then you certainly would be able to believe in anything. It's a choice, and you are either willing or unwilling.

Okay. In that case, you should believe in Santa Claus. If you DO, you'll get magical free presents and be infused with the Spirit (of Christmas). If you don't, you will be a grinch and get no presents other than those other people give you. Santa believes in you, but you must accept him in order to get the benefit of his magical benevolence.

So if not, why don't you?

And incidentally, is anyone else starting to feel a mild sense of surreality at being repeatedly accused of religious bigotry for failure to agree that science clearly demonstrates the existence of God, by someone who thinks no people of a culture not deeply steeped in Judeo-Christianity, preferably Protestant, is capable of moral choices and behavior?

Well...

...now that you mention it....

Only a prophet knows for sure. Assuming that he knows anything, and is not operating off of mushrooms.

The rest of us have to make a choice. I personally find that the religion I follow is constructed with tremendous wisdom and tends to understand human nature better than any other religion, or secular humanism, or liberalism, or Marxism. Therefore, I follow the dictates of that religion and I am open to the idea that it indeed came from a higher power.

(Though once I started getting into Tai Chi a year ago, I discovered a whole new set of reasons validating my religion… but that's just crazy mystical talk :-) )

Oh, and Kevin:

Where have I argued that "Religion as a general principle is a bad thing?"

Sorry, I launched into one of my preprogrammed rants there.

I should mention that my greatest concern is not whether people believe in a higher power or not, but whether what they do believe in provides a consistent, long-lasting basis for the sanctity of life and the desirability of freedom.

After Nietzsche, it's hard for me to believe that a secular philosophy can do that; but if yours can, for God's sake spread it around!!

:-)

"...how about humanism? From the French Revolution to the Cuban Revolution we have hundreds of years of evidence that man as the measure of all things produces nothing short of disastrous results."

Oddly enough, when this comment was used against Christians and Christianity, the response was, "They weren't real/true Christians." And we weren't allowed to reference witch burnings, inquistions, or crusades.

Well then, those so called humanists weren't true humanists. They just called themselves that. Can we leave all the bad stuff humanists have done out of the conversation, too?

"And yet Kevin clings to his faith that one day someone will figure out how to make a Christian society without the Christianity."

Could easily be replaced by: And yet X clings to thier faith that one day someone will figure out how to make a Buddhist society without the Christianity."

Which brings me to the next point...

Ben, Sarah, various others, you've argued that proof won't affect those of us who don't believe. But what about those billions of others who've found belief, but found no God, only the path?

Without proof, without evidence, that one theory is more valid than another, how then is a person to choose?

And in the absence of evidence, of proof, how can one decide one way is better than another? What reason is there to choose?

Or to ask it another way...
Why should I believe in a historical figure, who is often quoted second hand, after many years between incident and account, who has only the weight of ~2000 years behind his teachings and proposed beliefs, when I have another historical figure, who was quoted and recorded at the time of events, who has the weight of ~2600 years behind his teachings and proposed beliefs?

Note, thier beliefs are radically different in many key areas, including the existence of a supreme being, both lead to a virtuous life of good, but do so from opposite directions, and without congruence in methods.

Rand.